The lens was the plastic fantastic, my $90 50 1.8D, hand held at 1/125, at 5.6. Its the only AF Nikon 50mm I have. It is light weight, sharp, contrasty, but not much magic. My 50 1.4Ai from 1975 (this belonged to my mother who was a PJ) is not as sharp but looks better.

For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder. I really like the B&W output. I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS. I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less. It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be. The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes. I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert. I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one. I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf. I wish I still had the Imacon 646. My current thinking goes something like this: for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders. Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do. When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango. This process works well. I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience. I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process. If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson.

The Nikon 9000 was a pain. Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great. The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower. No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson). When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort. Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.

Regarding moiré, I guess we have been warned. The D800 has OLP filtering while the D800E has some engineering work done to remove the effect of the OLP filter. But rejoice, my understanding is that moiré actually means that your lens outresolves the sensor. So when you see moiré you know having exact focus and good microcontrast at pixel level. So the moiré actually shows that your technique is good!

I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues. I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS. I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations. C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool. I end up using both.

snip

T, I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv. I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel. It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

I think I will. I've been thinking of RD or Raw Therapee. Last time I used Raw Developer was with the 1ds2, worked wonders with that high contrast banding. I'm still on their mailing list from way back when. I was half considereing getting Nikon Capture NX, but man, I have PTSD from using it years ago. It crashed every machine I owned whenever I sent a batch of files to process out, although color was nice.

I think these are all teething problems with the Nikon. Until its worked out I'll stick to a Canon for any production, maybe the Leaf, and if possible, T-Max. The Canon may not produce as nice a file when all is said and done, but it just works.

One more thing about the Nikon: as a camera, it is fantastic. Reminds me of my F4 and F5, but with a smaller finder. Makes me want to stick with it.

I know I'd recomended the D800 to you before, but knowing your schedule, I'd wait until everything is sorted. Frankley, if I had received this camera when I was working I would have taken it back until the software catches up.

T, I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv. I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel. It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

...For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder. I really like the B&W output. I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS. I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less. It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be. The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes. I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert. I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one. I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf. I wish I still had the Imacon 646. My current thinking goes something like this: for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders. Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do. When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango. This process works well. I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience. I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process. If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson.

The Nikon 9000 was a pain. Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great. The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower. No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson). When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort. Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.

Film is mucho work. I really liked Nikon's scan software. It was right for color 95% of the time. Imacons Flex software was good. Silverfast could be brilliant or just the worst piece of shit you've ever encountered. I now scan color negs as positives in VueScan and use a PS plug in for the reversal. Digimark ColorNeg. Works a treat on B&W as well.

I bought RD. They hooked me up because I was a past customer, received a discount.

I dig it. Better than C1 in terms of color, maybe better than LR. In time after I fool with it enough I think it might be workable.

Then I downloaded a trial of Nikon NX. All the funkiness in the C1 files is gone, color is good. I need to work it some more, but I like what I see thus far. Yeah, it feels very 2003, but hasn't crashed.

T, I know you don't want to add another processing suite, but try Raw Developer.

It's interface is more industrial and less consumer oriented than Lightroom or C-1, but if I have a problematic file or session, RD probably gets more film like, less candy/consumer colors than any software I've used.

When you open the software, within the "in" section there is a edit button next to Camera adv. I don't think most people even know it's there.

Press it and you'll get RGB channels with RGB settings within each channel. It's not visual except on the preview but you can visually profile an image with more accuracy than any software I use and save the profile.

If I shoot multiple cameras for a session or project, I find RD kind of mellows the various platforms out and gives closer to the same look than anything else I've used.

Once again, it's less than pretty software, though straight forward and easy to use.

Film is mucho work. I really liked Nikon's scan software. It was right for color 95% of the time. Imacons Flex software was good. Silverfast could be brilliant or just the worst piece of shit you've ever encountered. I now scan color negs as positives in VueScan and use a PS plug in for the reversal. Digimark ColorNeg. Works a treat on B&W as well.

The lens was the plastic fantastic, my $90 50 1.8D, hand held at 1/125, at 5.6. Its the only AF Nikon 50mm I have. It is light weight, sharp, contrasty, but not much magic. My 50 1.4Ai from 1975 (this belonged to my mother who was a PJ) is not as sharp but looks better.

For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder. I really like the B&W output. I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS. I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less. It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be. The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes. I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert. I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one. I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf. I wish I still had the Imacon 646. My current thinking goes something like this: for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders. Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do. When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango. This process works well. I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience. I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process. If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson.

The Nikon 9000 was a pain. Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great. The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower. No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson). When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort. Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.

Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.

Yup I posted some scans done with the v750, but they were dry scans. I have done wet scans too, but can't post them because I shot them for commercial clients.

Here are a couple of examples that I can post....

They are full frame 6x8 and crops.

The v750 is a good scanner. The software that comes with it Silverfast is good, but can be frustrating at times. Some of the complex curve editors are small soplaying with them can be tricky. A big wacom tablet can help a bit in particular if your monitor is large. Sometimes the curve editors after much tweaking can just go waco and you loose everything.

Regarding wet scanning it improves things in certain conditions. If you have a lot of curved tension in the negative it helps keep it flatter.

There are two ways of doing a wet scan with the v750. Single wet layer or dual wet layer.

With single wet layer you put the negative face down on glass with the fluid between the glass and the film. You put it emulsion down.This will take away emulsion surface texture or at least dramatically reduce it.

With a dual wet layer you doe the above, but also wet the top of the film and place a clear mylar film on top.This will smooth out and hide scratches on the plastic surface of the film.

With a single layer you have to tape around the negative to avoid the fluid evaporating and drying out during your scan.And remember emulsion towards the glass.

I use Aztek SMF 2001 fluid. It leaves no residue, but it is rather fast drying so you have to tape the edges well for longer duration scans.

The epson v750 produces great detail quite close to very high end scanners, however for transparancy film you will get better results with a higher end drum scanner.Negatives "fit" just fine into the DMax of the V750.

To all concerned about D800 color, I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX. What a nightmare. Aside from being slow (beach balls?) unintuitive, few tools, and generally out of another time, the color and rendering of the D800 files blows away C1, RD, and LR 4.2. The color is really amazing. I was at a kids birthday party, with my daughter, I wasn't creepin', and found the whitest ginger I could, and snapped his pic at ISO 800, wide open. Shutter speed was 1/30 or so. I tried attaching the pic but it hangs on upload. I'll try again.

So great color is possible without a tremendous amount of work, just slow suffering of using NX. I have it on a slow(ish) machine with a crappy video card. I'll put NX on another machine and see if performance improves.

No, I don't think so. My guess is that LR and C1 have ideas about color rendition. I guess that Nikon has ideas about color rendition that differs from Adobe's. It's a bit like Velvia, Provia and Ektachrome.

The problem is that sometimes we want accurate colors, sometimes natural colors and sometimes pleasant color.

I don't think that you can move color profiles easily between NX and LR. Well, you may be lucky... Camera profiles are not like standard ICC stuff, as far as I understand.

Perhaps the best way is to use a Color Checker convert it using NX and than trying to match the rendition using Adobe DNG profile editor or a similar tool, or just to fix a preset for facial tone?

My guess is that it is probably best to first create a 'zeroed out' profile that reproduces a color checker as close as possible, than create a preset to implement nice facial color?

To all concerned about D800 color, I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX. What a nightmare. Aside from being slow (beach balls?) unintuitive, few tools, and generally out of another time, the color and rendering of the D800 files blows away C1, RD, and LR 4.2. The color is really amazing. I was at a kids birthday party, with my daughter, I wasn't creepin', and found the whitest ginger I could, and snapped his pic at ISO 800, wide open. Shutter speed was 1/30 or so. I tried attaching the pic but it hangs on upload. I'll try again.

So great color is possible without a tremendous amount of work, just slow suffering of using NX. I have it on a slow(ish) machine with a crappy video card. I'll put NX on another machine and see if performance improves.

I have NX (was part of the D800e package) but have not gone the way of using it, I am still in shock over previous versions. I will give it a try later to see how it pans out. I have already bought C1 too. So now I can test it with LR, C1, Phocus and NX. I just have to wait to get the D800 back.

I have NX (was part of the D800e package) but have not gone the way of using it, I am still in shock over previous versions. I will give it a try later to see how it pans out. I have already bought C1 too. So now I can test it with LR, C1, Phocus and NX. I just have to wait to get the D800 back.

In North America Nikon does not give us NX, which makes shelling out $130 for it insulting.

C1 is the "sharpest" converter I've tried, followed by LR 4.2 and RD. I know that C1 always does some sharpening, or at least it did in prior versions. I believe that I was successful in turning off sharpening in NX, and it appears that indeed the tiff was not sharpened. NX's rendering is really nice, it pulls out subtle color, even though some detail was blurred at 100%, which was clearly visible in RD and C1.

NX versus DPP, well, DPP is better, sort of, but they are comparable. DPP runs better and without lag in the adjustments. I have a feeling that NX uses the VRAM and video card chipset, as it behaves just like a program that relies heavily on the video card with adjustments using an older machine. I'll put NX on a newer machine and see if it is any better. DPP is free as well.

What is funny is that I've had this camera since May, I believe, and I've only shot B&W with it, converting in C1 and then using SilverFX. Its just now, as I rid myself of excess camera systems, that I started using it for everything, from shooting mood boards, editorials, the kids, street, that I noticed the color.

...., I broke down and downloaded Nikon Capture NX. What a nightmare...

NX is not slow if you use it on a fast 64bit operating system... to be honest it has improved in speed a lot since the 64 bit versionsYes the interface is from the stone age...not like ACR - batch processing work fast.It is the most gentle (soft) raw converter for the d800e but not the sharpest.ViewNX is the fastest way to look into your raws and the only program that can read the changed information that you can save in the NEFs with NX At the moment i am using 3 Raw converters that i need depending on the subject.

One more finding: The C1 profile should be called "D800-High Noon No Shade Daylight", because in direct sun, not 4200k late afternoon magic hour sun, but full on 5200k-5600k Day Light, the C1 profile is bang on.

I suspect, but don't know, that the D800's color response in other than high noon light, at other than low ISO, changes significantly under different light or at higher ISO.

I'll dig up some NEFs I shot under strobes over the summer that were converted. I don't remember any color oddness with those files.

On Capture NX: My 2012 MBP does very well with NX. It is fast. It behaves a lot like SilverFX.